Whatever their differences, the two front-runners in the Democratic presidential race, Joe Biden, born November 20, 1942, and Bernie Sanders, born September 8, 1941, share one common trait: They are too old to be president.

2017 is turning out to be be continuing on the path set by 2016 by becoming wierderer and wierderer. Imagine if you will, the Clinton News Network broadcasting a full, unedited political debate in an really non-partisan way (really! I mean it). The format was straightforward. The speakers were self-controlled, by and large sticking to the questions proffered by the audience. The audience questioners presented represented a fair balance of differing opinions..

With the Trump coronation near at hand, the question of his “legitimacy” as POTUS 45 continue to dominate the news, and those silly Russians still don’t get off stage!

It is not apparent what legitimacy means in this context. Is Trump the benevolent standard bearer of the PEOPLE (the 95%) of America and the of the world? Of course not. (And I don’t see the comedy in the arrogant CEO’s off-the-cuff insults and one-liners.)

I must say that I have lost interest in the DT food fights that are so popular these days. The man won, the Democrats and other left groups keep losing and my meatspace friends are still barking up the wrong tree. But they are all good people deep down, so instead, I have been concentrating on explaining why so many people might have been desperate enough to take a chance on Trump. Most of them seem to get it, and hopefully this will lead to better outcomes going forward.

In a May email released by DC Leaks, Marlon Marshall, the director of states and political engagement for the Hillary Clinton campaign, forwarded two documents to several top Clinton staffers. One of these was a spreadsheet of detailed information about several Bernie Sanders supporters and Sanders delegates. This was described as part of a “Unity Check” for the Democratic Party.

This whole election cycle has convinced me that the corruption (that I always knew was there) truly runs deep. The system is rotten to the core. So I decided to look up a brief history of superdelegates.

The history is a bit involved but the basic premise is that the Democratic Party, in the wake of presidential campaign losses beginning in 1968, wanted a system that would insure that the best candidate was put forward.

Throughout the Democratic primary, many raised doubts as to the impartiality of the process. These doubts stemmed primarily from grievances regarding systemic issues like superdelegates and closed primaries as well as concerns surrounding the Party Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who had co-chaired Clinton’s primary run in 2008. The media’s seemingly slanted coverage only added to suspicions.

I'm sure he regrets now taking the emails off the table in the first debate. And never touching the Foundation, which obviously was always an egregious conflict of interest for a Secretary of State, dovetailing completely with his dominant campaign theme about the role of money in politics.

He's not going to be treated well by Democrats in the next session. Given the extent and depth of the corruption the Democratic Party engaged in this primary to scuttle Sanders, and the humiliation he's endured at such a high-profile event as the Convention, how can one conclude otherwise? I want very much for people to not pin too much hope on Sanders' power and effectiveness in the Senate.